Date of Filing:13.08.2007 Date of Order:16.06.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1719 OF 2007 P. Siddaraju, Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore-560 009. Complainant V/S Citi Bank, Prestige Meridian, M.G. Road, Bangalore. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that he is a credit card holder of opposite party Bank and used the card up to October-2003 and payments were made as per the statement of Bank. After getting transfer to Bangalore he received two Bank statements for June and July-2003. From July-2003 onwards Bank statements were not received by the complainant. He stopped paying the EMIs after October-2003 getting for the statement. After long period he received letter for payment of outstanding arrears of Rs.1,53,349-60. Therefore, he requested to consider his appeal. He states that Bank has not intimated the billing amount. The basis for claiming the amount is not made known. The Bank has not made any attempt to send the monthly statement. He submitted that the matter be taken up the issue with the Bank and help him in settling the matter. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version stating that, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is not maintainable. Complainant is due in sum of Rs.1,53,349.60. This complaint is filed just to avoid payment of the legitimate dues to the opposite party. Complainant had shifted his residence from Mysore to Bangalore, but he has not intimated his change of address to the opposite party. Complainant has not informed the present address with malafide intention. Opposite party had issued legal notice demanding outstanding dues. Hence, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. 4. The points for consideration are:- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? REASONS 5. During the course of arguments the learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, the complainant is ready and willing to pay Rs.40,800/- to the opposite party Bank for settling the matter and to that effect the complainant had also written letter to the opposite party Bank on 27/3/2008. The copy of letter is also produced. The opposite party Bank has produced statement of account. As per the opposite party Bank, the complainant is due in a sum of Rs.1,53,349/-. Therefore, it is for the parties concerned to settle the matter amicably. If the opposite party is ready to accept Rs.40,800/- as offered by the complainant, matter will be closed. Ultimately, the opposite party Bank has to take decision on the offer made by the complainant. The prayer of complainant that opposite party Bank be directed to refund Rs.1,53,349/- is absurd and it is very strange request of the complainant. When the complainant himself is due to the Bank and he has come forward to pay Rs.40,800/- for the settlement of the claim with the opposite party how can the complainant request for refund of Rs. 1,53,349/-. This prayer is baseless. Such kind of prayer is fit to be rejected at the outright. As regards the other prayers of the complainant that the opposite party Bank has not sent the statements and Bank may be ordered to send statements. The opposite party Bank had complied with the request and submitted the statement of account. When the complainant himself is due to the opposite party Bank, therefore there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has miserably failed to prove or establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. As per the allegation made in the complaint he has paid the bills up to the September and October-2003 and thereafter, the complainant has not paid the bills till filing of the complaint. Therefore, on his own allegations made by the complainant, the complaint is barred by time. The complainant has not approached the Forum for relief within two years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly, the lost payment made by the complainant was for the month of October-2003. The complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that he stopped paying EMIs after October-2003. Therefore, the cause of action arose to the complainant in the month of October-2003 and he could have filed complaint within two years from that date. The present complaint was received through post on 13/8/2007. Therefore, complaint is barred by time. On this count itself complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is an Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL he should honourably settle the matter with the opposite party Bank by negotiation. He has also sent letter to the Bank stating that he is ready and willing to pay Rs.40,800/- for the full and final settlement of the matter. I hope opposite party Bank may consider his offer and try to settle the matter amicably for maintaining good and harmonious relationship with the customers. With this observation, I am of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
